Chapeau melon et bottes de cuir

Is The Avengers a good film? No. Is it the worst film ever made? No. I first saw the movie at the cinema upon its release and, at that time, I did think that it was one of the worst films I'd seen up to that point. I've watched it 2 or 3 times since then and my opinion of it has improved, well, very slightly at any rate. Apart from a pervading incoherence, I think the film's major problem is its slightness; it's only an hour and a half long and the plot is very simplistic to say the least. It's not hard to imagine audiences feeling a bit short-changed when it first came out, especially as the film was a big-budget, would-be summer blockbuster. Another big problem is the casting of Uma Thurman as Emma Peel. Thurman has shown herself to be a fine actress in movies such as Pulp Fiction but she just looks out of her depth here (I never believed in her as a top-level scientist for a second) and her English accent doesn't sound natural. Nicole Kidman, to whom the role was first offered, would surely have been better, in particular, she's displayed flawless English accents in films such as The Others and The Hours. An English actress I also think would have made a great Peel is Joely Richardson but the studio would probably have vetoed such a choice on the grounds of her not being a big enough name. Ralph Fiennes was a real enigma in this film - there was nothing wrong in principle in casting him as Steed but he looks ill at ease throughout the movie as if he'd rather be elsewhere. I can only assume he'd already twigged that the film was going to be a turkey. What's worse, Fiennes and Thurman have absolutely no chemistry between them, which wastes the snappy dialogue they have with each other throughout the film. The supporting cast fare a bit better with seasoned pros such as Sean Connery, Jim Broadbent and Fiona Shaw making the most of their underdeveloped parts. The retro-chic world of the original TV series is nicely recreated and there's no shortage of nice cars, costumes and locations but what's good about the film is easily drowned out by what's bad; The Avengers is ultimately a shallow, rushed and messy affair, severely hampered by the performances of its two leads. Handled properly, the film could have been a wonderful success for all concerned, the first chapter of an entertaining and lucrative franchise, stretching well beyond the 1990s; instead it's one of the most embarrassing flops of that decade. The original cut of the film was apparently two and a half hours long but, following negative reactions from audiences at test screenings, the studio hacked the film down to its present one and a half hour length. This doesn't actually come as much of a surprise as there is a lack of proper narrative flow to the film suggestive of chunks of explanatory scenes having been cut out. Just one example: towards the end of the film, just before they enter Sir August's underwater lair, Steed and Peel enter a phone box and Peel says "how now brown cow?" down the phone. The phrase seems to be a password to enter the premises but how does Peel know it? There's been talk here and there of the possibility of Warners releasing a director's cut or special edition DVD, restoring the original two and a half hour version. I think this would be a good idea and I'd definitely be interested in watching the full version of the film. It's highly unlikely to be any kind of masterpiece but it's difficult to imagine that it wouldn't improve upon the movie as it stands. At the very least you'd have to assume that it would be more coherent. Sadly I don't think the chances of Warners going down this line are high; I have the feeling that this is a movie the studio would rather forget about than draw attention to.

I wasn't all that interested in watching this movie, but I decided to anyway since it was one of the only ones that week there that I hadn't seen yet. I should've saw one of the others. I don't even remember what they are now, but it doesn't matter. I am pretty sure that THE AVENGERS is the worst movie of the decade and one of my least favorite movies of all time.

John Steed (Ralph Fiennes) and Emma Peel (Uma Thurman) team up to stop Sir August de Wynter (Sean Connery) from destroying the planet with a weather-changing machine. I won't go into the plot too deeply, because it's just plain stupid.

The acting in this movie was not very good. Ralph Fiennes and Fiona Shaw (Father) play two of the most annoying characters in any movies that I have ever seen. The constant unwitty one-liners between Fiennes and Thurman is very annoying. Sean Connery is at his worst here. I was disappointed in him, because he is a great actor who doesn't belong in this movie. Sir August de Wynter? Just the name of the character alone should tell you much.

There was, however, one thing that was good about this movie. That would be Uma Thurman in her tight leather. I am absolutely in love with Uma Thurman, and I don't think she belonged in this film, but I am pretty sure seeing her wearing those catsuits were the only thing that kept me from having to eat my own legs and drink my own urine to survive this movie.

Maybe you'll think I'm exaggerating a bit, but I found this movie to be boring and annoying. I recommend that it be avoided at all costs.

I am amazed at how well an American film has captured the matter-of-fact surrealism which the mathematician Dodgson(Lewis Carroll)gave to his dream-child, Alice, as also it recalls the more knowing, and oh-so-polite deconstruction wrought by the media-saavy British children of the 60's upon the distressed remnants of England's Imperial aplomb!

Of course, as Oscar Wilde may not have said, Satire revisited is only a lukewarm cup of tea. But then nostalgia - especially when the satire was so gentle anyway - has its own charms. And there was, anyway, a hefty dose of nostalgia amidst the cool insouciance of the original. Its very modernity was made to seem almost an expression of polite insistence on whatever surreal manifestation of tradition was encountered. It was the utterly unruffled mien of the original which prevailed over all lapses from reason and good taste. So, at its best, in the new cinema version.

This is indeed a brave try by Hollywood to draw us back into that black-and-white psychedelia of swinging sixties British commercial television. The sheer madness of the enterprise almost works - if the money-men hadn't had cold feet at the last minute, we might have been enjoying a really remarkable fantasy film. As it is, we must content ourselves with a merely very amusing piece of whimsy. Even through the plot-holes left by a nervous editor we can see some wonderfully mad logic at work: The Escher-inspired architecture of the baddy's stately home, in which Mrs Peel at one point loses her way, encapsulates this whole dream-trip of a movie.

And for those who don't 'get it', I can only say, Humour is like that: Very dependent on individual taste.

But even allowing for taste, it is a sad reflection on public taste that 'The Avengers' overwhelmingly offends filmgoers who are probably quite prepared to accept the ever more overblown superheroes of a more violent tradition, such as 'Batman' or 'The Hulk'. Of course, these two are clearly representative of that particularly adolescent taste for the extreme and crude for which the contemporary Hollywood production-line largely exists. (There is every sign that Eddie Izzard's character was originally intended to satirize mega-buck entertainment and mega-buck villains as being really just spoiled brats with their expensive toys.) The genteel quirks of the English-inspired concept of 'The Avengers' are - in their essence, and however silly - just too irritatingly grown-up for such hyperactive youth ever to endure sitting still for!

A pity the film was not left alone upon release to find its own friends - like a stray cat, that will carefully choose whom it will exercise it's feline charm upon. And what more feline than Uma Thurman in Mrs. Peel's cat-suit?!

This is certainly not the sort of film to toss into an auditorium full of baying first-run morons.

But I suspect that it is a film with more than one life ...

In London, the agent of the Ministry John Steed (Ralph Fiennes) and Dr. Emma Peel (Uma Thurman) are summoned by the Mother (Jim Broadbent), who shows a footage where the Prospero Project that controls the weather is damaged by Dr. Peel. They head to meet Sir August de Wynter (Sean Connery), who is a weather specialist, but soon they discover that he wants to rule the world, using his machine that controls the weather.

I saw "The Avengers" in the 90's and did not like this movie. Today I have just seen it again on DVD and I found again a silly and boring movie that wastes cast and budget. It is hard to believe that Sean Connery accepted to work in this turkey. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Os Vingadores" ("The Avengers")

Uma Thurman's catsuits aside, "The Avengers" is one of the flattest movies to come down the pike in a long time.

The failing Sean Connery isn't really the villain in this movie, the true villains are a director who thought he could "improve" on the original, and an editor who really shouldn't have been let out of film school.

Fiennes and Thurman do an adquate job with what they were given, which wasn't much, and then the editor took half of that away.

Connery got one half-choked off rant, (all of which you see in the trailer) and then hid in the leftover set for the power supply from the floating city in "The Empire Strikes Out" (Er -- "Back"). A pathetic effort from a formerly stellar actor.

Eileen Atkins was rather fun as Alice, Steed's minder, and the guest appearance by Patrick Macnee was somewhat amusing.

As for the writing, well.... I think (despite the credits) they actually gave the job to a couple of public school lads who rather thought that they were being clever.

Overall, not worth the money spent to make it, nor the $6 I paid to see it. One star, mostly for some rather nice, if somewhat generic, cinematography.